Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tech Dirt)   TSA has killed more people than died on 9/11   (techdirt.com) divider line 104
    More: Ironic  
•       •       •

11279 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Nov 2012 at 11:39 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



104 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-21 05:50:27 PM  
The US would be in a much better place if we had done absolutely nothing in response to 9/11 with the single exception of putting locks on all the cockpit doors.
 
2012-11-21 05:52:33 PM  
Soooo the terrorists won?
 
2012-11-21 06:31:51 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: The US would be in a much better place if we had done absolutely nothing in response to 9/11 with the single exception of putting locks on all the cockpit doors.


I do believe you're right.
 
2012-11-21 06:40:06 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: The US would be in a much better place if we had done absolutely nothing in response to 9/11 with the single exception of putting locks on all the cockpit doors.


We all would be, but the article quotes say that after 9/11 people eschewed air travel for road travel, it doesn't say that was because of the actual attacks themselves or because of TSA, but i'm willing to guess it's more because of the attacks themselves. Which is a shame, because it would be nice if people voted by not flying... not the dying on the roads part though.
 
2012-11-21 06:50:37 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: The US would be in a much better place if we had done absolutely nothing in response to 9/11 with the single exception of putting locks on all the cockpit doors.


And maybe had a slogan like "Keep calm and carry on". I borrowed that from somewhere but I don't remember where now, it's been so long.
 
2012-11-21 06:55:04 PM  

Barfmaker: Arthur Jumbles: The US would be in a much better place if we had done absolutely nothing in response to 9/11 with the single exception of putting locks on all the cockpit doors.

And maybe had a slogan like "Keep calm and carry on". I borrowed that from somewhere but I don't remember where now, it's been so long.


Or maybe they could use this?

www.wired.com
 
2012-11-21 07:59:23 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: The US would be in a much better place if we had done absolutely nothing in response to 9/11 with the single exception of putting locks on all the cockpit doors.


The Department of Fatherland Security has noted your comment and added you to the watch list. Have a nice day.
 
2012-11-21 08:55:58 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Soooo the terrorists won?


i512.photobucket.com

It was a tie!
 
2012-11-21 09:08:48 PM  
FTFA: "The TSA, in an attempt to keep us safe..."

TFA, like most articles about the TSA makes a fundamental error. The TSA isn't there to "keep us safe" or even to capture terrorists. It is somebody's empire, no more, no less. We won't understand what is going on until the books start coming out, but meanwhile there is this book about the empire of J. Edgar Hoover.
 
2012-11-21 09:18:14 PM  
People switched from flying to driving because of the TSA, or because they were afraid terrorists would kill them on a plane?
 
2012-11-21 09:18:54 PM  
What the article writer must look like:
dougernst.files.wordpress.com

Because he's playing this game:
www.adamrb.com
 
2012-11-21 09:22:55 PM  
 
2012-11-21 09:36:38 PM  

Slaxl: Arthur Jumbles: The US would be in a much better place if we had done absolutely nothing in response to 9/11 with the single exception of putting locks on all the cockpit doors.

We all would be, but the article quotes say that after 9/11 people eschewed air travel for road travel, it doesn't say that was because of the actual attacks themselves or because of TSA, but i'm willing to guess it's more because of the attacks themselves. Which is a shame, because it would be nice if people voted by not flying... not the dying on the roads part though.


You can believe that if you want, but I've talked to a few people that don't travel much anymore because of the hassle. I haven't met a single person that doesn't travel because they're scared of terrorists.
 
2012-11-21 09:52:05 PM  
Author needs to take a reading comprehension class.

Or just give up.
 
2012-11-21 09:55:57 PM  
Likewise, weed prohibition has led to hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies, diabetes, obesity, and several billion in pizza and Taco Bell sales...
 
2012-11-21 10:08:02 PM  

jaylectricity: Slaxl: Arthur Jumbles: The US would be in a much better place if we had done absolutely nothing in response to 9/11 with the single exception of putting locks on all the cockpit doors.

We all would be, but the article quotes say that after 9/11 people eschewed air travel for road travel, it doesn't say that was because of the actual attacks themselves or because of TSA, but i'm willing to guess it's more because of the attacks themselves. Which is a shame, because it would be nice if people voted by not flying... not the dying on the roads part though.

You can believe that if you want, but I've talked to a few people that don't travel much anymore because of the hassle. I haven't met a single person that doesn't travel because they're scared of terrorists.


Yeah, this. I fly far less now than I used to - I even avoid vacation destinations that require flight - because I farking HATE the TSA and I find the whole process objectionable. I have absolutely no concerns at all about terrorists.
 
2012-11-21 10:15:57 PM  

serial_crusher: People switched from flying to driving because of the TSA, or because they were afraid terrorists would kill them on a plane?


One anecdotal sample: It is because of the casual contempt of airlines and some their employees (and their unions) for their customers. It is also because of the malevolent presence of the TSA goons. It is because of the endless lining-up, overcharging, interminable time in terminals, and spending hours in what amounts to a large pipe with too many people crowded into it. It is not about teh terrorists.
 
2012-11-21 10:44:20 PM  
If I can't bring my collection of various liquids and razor blades I don't go.
 
2012-11-21 10:45:27 PM  
Using that line of reasoning couldn't we also argue that car manufacturers are responsible for deaths because the cheap availability of cars keeps a proper train infrastructure from being developed, thus leading to more auto fatalities?
 
2012-11-21 10:48:11 PM  

coco ebert: cheap availability of cars


Cars are only cheap for rich people. Everybody else needs to pay them off monthly.
 
2012-11-21 11:40:58 PM  
That's not irony subby, that is just sad.
 
2012-11-21 11:42:11 PM  

coco ebert: Using that line of reasoning couldn't we also argue that car manufacturers are responsible for deaths because the cheap availability of cars keeps a proper train infrastructure from being developed, thus leading to more auto fatalities?


Yes. Yes you may.
 
2012-11-21 11:48:48 PM  
The claim assumes that people who chose not to fly ended up driving to their destinations rather than taking the train or simply staying home.

Math...how does it work???

/TSA can still EABOD though.
 
2012-11-21 11:50:31 PM  

coco ebert: Using that line of reasoning couldn't we also argue that car manufacturers are responsible for deaths because the cheap availability of cars keeps a proper train infrastructure from being developed, thus leading to more auto fatalities?


No. We had the infrastructure. Eisenhower and GM teamed up to piss it away.
 
2012-11-21 11:53:02 PM  

This About That: serial_crusher: People switched from flying to driving because of the TSA, or because they were afraid terrorists would kill them on a plane?

One anecdotal sample: It is because of the casual contempt of airlines and some their employees (and their unions) for their customers. It is also because of the malevolent presence of the TSA goons. It is because of the endless lining-up, overcharging, interminable time in terminals, and spending hours in what amounts to a large pipe with too many people crowded into it. It is not about teh terrorists.


Fifteen yard penalty - illegal gratuitous union bashing. Replay third down.
 
2012-11-21 11:55:10 PM  

BMulligan: Fifteen yard penalty - illegal gratuitous union bashing. Replay third down.


Do you know how I know you aren't a scab referee?
 
2012-11-21 11:56:03 PM  
Shut up six sigma, YOU COCK!
 
2012-11-21 11:56:44 PM  

jaylectricity: Slaxl: Arthur Jumbles: The US would be in a much better place if we had done absolutely nothing in response to 9/11 with the single exception of putting locks on all the cockpit doors.

We all would be, but the article quotes say that after 9/11 people eschewed air travel for road travel, it doesn't say that was because of the actual attacks themselves or because of TSA, but i'm willing to guess it's more because of the attacks themselves. Which is a shame, because it would be nice if people voted by not flying... not the dying on the roads part though.

You can believe that if you want, but I've talked to a few people that don't travel much anymore because of the hassle. I haven't met a single person that doesn't travel because they're scared of terrorists.


Ten flights this year, 100 minutes wasted and I guess a slim chance of cancer, is all the trouble the tsa has given me. And not all of those hundred minutes is pure tsa, there were security lines before.

The tsa is a waste, tfa is garbage, and tall tales where everyone online wants to pretend their lives are as interesting as the stories they read online of rare events are ridiculous.

Oh, and my cargo pants' buttons resulted a pat down of my knee pockets last week.. woooooo scary.
 
2012-11-21 11:57:50 PM  

Triumph: Arthur Jumbles: The US would be in a much better place if we had done absolutely nothing in response to 9/11 with the single exception of putting locks on all the cockpit doors.

The Department of Fatherland Security has noted your comment and added you to the watch list. Have a nice day.


I read that as Fartland Security.
 
2012-11-22 12:00:15 AM  
 
2012-11-22 12:02:43 AM  
Have they caught up with Jenny McCarthy yet?
 
2012-11-22 12:11:50 AM  

coco ebert: Using that line of reasoning couldn't we also argue that car manufacturers are responsible for deaths because the cheap availability of cars keeps a proper train infrastructure from being developed, thus leading to more auto fatalities?


I'd go a step further and say that living is the leading cause of death. If we allowed abortions less kids and adults would die.
 
2012-11-22 12:12:56 AM  
MBillions and MBillions of people molested, including kids, by the tsa and we are still putting kids in jail for years for one joint. 

/Know your Rights and knee lifts.
//what? are you afraid of a few hours in lockup and a trial that completely absolves you of any crime?
///Self defense is a Right my friends. 
////The law specifically states that Police officers can't grope you(without a crime and an arrest and search for weapons) and neither can security guards(tsa) who don't have any legal powers other than observe and call a cop to report.
 
2012-11-22 12:15:14 AM  
OK, I have no respect for the TSA, but this is just silly. It's like saying that people who smoke pot are personally responsible for the death and violence in Mexico. They're not, and the TSA hasn't killed more people than the terrorists on 9/11.

That doesn't mean that there is no cause and effect. I'm just saying that if we're going to start assigning moral blame to everyone who might exist in a causal chain between Point A and Point Death, then we should all just report to prison right now. Airplanes use petroleum products as fuel; the petroleum industry feeds money into the coffers of dictators and tyrants in the mideast; those dictators and tyrants kill and oppress people; so if you fly, you're personally responsible for people dying in the mideast? I don't think so.
 
2012-11-22 12:25:53 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: coco ebert: Using that line of reasoning couldn't we also argue that car manufacturers are responsible for deaths because the cheap availability of cars keeps a proper train infrastructure from being developed, thus leading to more auto fatalities?

No. We had the infrastructure. Eisenhower and GM teamed up to piss it away.


The General Motors streetcar conspiracy? Perhaps, though I hesitate to blame Eisenhower for building infrastructure that was, honestly, rather useful. Highways make sense, since they allow a wider variety of vehicles than rail. The problem, and unless I am mistaken the place where most accidents occur, is the cities.
 
2012-11-22 12:28:16 AM  
well, thank God gays got the vote.
 
2012-11-22 12:31:29 AM  

Hunter_Worthington: well, thank God gays got the vote.


Have you taken to simply bashing your head on your keyboard? That's no way to troll, son.
 
2012-11-22 12:31:51 AM  

Arthur Jumbles: The US would be in a much better place if we had done absolutely nothing in response to 9/11 with the single exception of putting locks on all the cockpit doors.


Lockerbie, Scotland taught us that we need reinforced cargo containers.
9/11 taught us that we need reinforced cockpit doors.
9/11 also taught us that you won't always be alright if you cooperate with hijackers and let them do their little political statement.

Those three things alone probably do more to keep us safe than the TSA and their Freedom Probes ever will.
 
2012-11-22 12:32:44 AM  
Do you what's killed more than all of them combined? Tax cuts for the 1% and wars for the 1%.
 
2012-11-22 12:33:37 AM  

sheep snorter: ...and we are still putting kids in jail for years for one joint. 


citationneeded.jpg
 
2012-11-22 12:37:06 AM  

Arthur Jumbles: The US would be in a much better place if we had done absolutely nothing in response to 9/11 with the single exception of putting locks on all the cockpit doors.


Right after 9/11 the airlines were losing millions daily because many people did not want to become part of a plane involved in a future terrorist attack.

So SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE to get people flying again. TSA started off as security theater designed to convince people that it was safe to fly again.

Today TSA is not really effective or even cost effective. A large part if it's institutionalization and size comes from the Bush administration ramping up terrorist threat levels to make the public feel that Bush & Co. were protecting them.
 
2012-11-22 12:37:30 AM  

This About That: It is somebody's empire, no more, no less.


The TSA was enacted to keep the sheep calm.
The TSA will never be dismantled because it has become somebody's empire.

My worry is that somebody is going to want roast mutton now that some of the sheep are baying.
 
2012-11-22 12:40:01 AM  

serial_crusher: People switched from flying to driving because of the TSA, or because they were afraid terrorists would kill them on a plane?


Mostly this.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and long before TSA, or even DHS was a glimmer in anyone's eye, air travel bookings plummeted because people were scared to fly. A longitudinal study performed by Gerd Gigerenzer of the Planck Institute of Berlin compared traffic fatalities in America for five years before and after 9/11. He used that much data to ensure he wasn't seeing any kind of short-term spike that might have been caused by other reasons. What he found is that fatalities peaked in the 12 months immediately after September 2001, and then returned to normal after 2002, with 1595 more deaths in that year than in the five years prior, or in the four years following. (Source: "The Science of Fear" Daniel Gardner, 2008)

If people aren't flying, and consequently are dying more in traffic accidents, it's not because of their dislike of being groped by TSA agents. It's because of their fear of being blown up by terrorists (because that's happened so much in the last decade). I've not noticed any lack of space on airlines, myself; but maybe I don't fly enough due to my lack of fear of being blown up. Or something.
 
2012-11-22 12:44:15 AM  
He is correct about TSA killing the desire for air travel. I've given lotsa business to Greyhound because I actually like taking the bus. Ill take Greyhound 3 days see the country to save hundreds visiting my father in Miami.
 
2012-11-22 12:57:37 AM  

Kevin72: He is correct about TSA killing the desire for air travel. I've given lotsa business to Greyhound because I actually like taking the bus. Ill take Greyhound 3 days see the country to save hundreds visiting my father in Miami.


I would if I had three days to spare. You get to see stuff out the window of a bus you'd never see otherwise.
 
2012-11-22 12:59:56 AM  
But, I like being fondled by strangers!

/People often ask me,"why?"
//"Search me" I reply.
 
2012-11-22 01:01:13 AM  
I believe this is a case of Being Right for the Wrong Reasons
 
2012-11-22 01:11:25 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Kevin72: He is correct about TSA killing the desire for air travel. I've given lotsa business to Greyhound because I actually like taking the bus. Ill take Greyhound 3 days see the country to save hundreds visiting my father in Miami.

I would if I had three days to spare. You get to see stuff out the window of a bus you'd never see otherwise.


I wonder if I'm on some kind of TSA list for the number of oneway flights I've taken, doing Greyhound the other way.
 
2012-11-22 01:18:27 AM  
people still scarf when one voices the opinion that 9/11 was financed and engineered by domestic power players. it's all about control. there are cameras at the red lights and local PD's have army surplus and SWAT gear yet people still live in denial. WashDC are the greatest terrorists since Hilter & Stalin. non stop war fun year after year, it never ends.
 
2012-11-22 01:34:04 AM  
Let me understand the assumptions:

1) Everyone who quit flying did it because of the TSA, not the threat of terrorists (which was a huge reason in the immediate aftermath of 9/11), because airlines have only gotten shiattier over time, and (since 2008 at least) economic reasons.
2) Everyone who decided not to fly made the trip in their personal automobile and did not take the bus or train or even cancel their trip altogether.

Looking a touch deeper:

They quote in their article:
"the substitution of driving for flying by those seeking to avoid security hassles over that period [5 years following 9/11] resulted in more than 100 road fatalities."
Only 145 more years like that and it adds up to the number killed on 9/11.

And:
"In total, our results suggest that at least 1,200 additional driving deaths are attributable to the effect of 9/11."
So the total is 1200, a few less than 3000. Assuming this is over the same 5 year period (which would be logical), that means 8.3% of increased fatalities were linked to security.

Let's look at dates, the studies that are at the bottom were published in 2003 and 2005, years before the massive ramp up of security in 2010.

And the studies seem to focus on the time immediately after the attacks, when fear was the strongest and the TSA was just being implemented.

So: A bogus article based on a bogus article based on a faulty premise based on a misrepresentation of two studies. What stellar work.
 
Displayed 50 of 104 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report